United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northern 

Research Station

Research Paper

NRS-21

A Comparison of Two 

Stem Injection Treatments 

Applied to American Beech 

in Central West Virginia

Jeffrey D. Kochenderfer

Gary W. Miller

James N. Kochenderfer
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service 

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015-8640

 Fax: (740)368-0152

September 2012 Email: nrspubs@fs.fed.us

This publication/database reports research involving 

pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their 

use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have 

been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered 

by appropriate State and/or Federal, agencies before they 

can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable 

plants, and fi sh or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. 

Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for 

the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

CAUTION:

PESTICIDES

The use of trade, fi rm, or corporation names in this publication is for the 

information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an 

official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the 

Forest Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be 

suitable.

Abstract

Efficacies for two herbicide stem injection treatments on American beech (Fagus grandifolia 

Ehrh.) and impacts to nontarget residual trees were evaluated in central West Virginia. 

The treatments consisted of hack-and-squirt injection of all beech stems ≥1.0 in. to 9.9 

in. diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) with either imazapyr as ArsenalTM (28.7 percent) or 

glyphosate as Razor ProTM (41 percent) in water carriers. The treatments were applied in 

September 2008 and evaluated 12 months after treatment. Complete control of injected 

stems was achieved with both treatments; however, treatment efficacy on untreated beech 

stems >1.0 ft tall to 0.9 in. d.b.h. was higher on the Arsenal treatments. No damage occurred 

to any desirable overstory species such as black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) or red maple 

(Acer rubrum L.) trees that were located on all the treatment plots. Land managers can use 

the hack-and-squirt injection treatments described in this study to control both injected trees 

and a large proportion of smaller beech root sprouts associated with them.

Manuscript received for publication 23 November 2011

Cover Photo

Injecting an American beech using a hatchet with a 1.75-inch-wide bit and spray bottle 

containing a 50 percent solution of Razor ProTM herbicide in a water carrier. Photo by James 

N. Kochenderfer, U.S. Forest Service (retired).
1

Th e Authors

JEFFREY D. KOCHENDERFER is 

a forester with the U.S. Forest Service’s 

Monongahela National Forest at 

Petersburg, WV.

GARY W. MILLER is a research 

forester with the U.S. Forest Service’s 

Northern Research Station at 

Morgantown, WV.

JAMES N. KOCHENDERFER is a 

retired research forester with the U.S. 

Forest Service’s Northern Research 

Station at Parsons, WV.

INTRODUCTION

Timber harvesting in the central Appalachians in the decades 

following heavy cutting in the early 20th century has usually involved 

some type of partial cutting that encourages the development of 

shade-tolerant species (Trimble 1973). Dense understories of tolerant 

species also develop naturally in Appalachian stands that have not been 

disturbed for many years. Once established, these tolerant understories 

can respond rapidly to additional overstory cutting, further increasing 

shade that can lead to a site conversion to shade-tolerant species 

(Nyland et al. 2006a). Research studies have demonstrated that dense 

understories of shade-tolerant species such as American beech (Fagus 

grandifolia Ehrh.) and striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum L.) can 

interfere with the establishment and development of desirable shadeintolerant reproduction (Horsley and Bjorkbom 1983, Miller et al. 

2004, Nyland et al. 2006b).

Stem injection herbicide treatments of undesirable understory 

vegetation to facilitate regeneration of desirable species have been 

recommended for Appalachian hardwood stands. Loftis (1990) 

described a shelterwood method for regenerating northern red oak 

(Quercus rubra L.) in the southern Appalachians. It includes retention 

of the main canopy and stem injection of subcanopy stems ≥0.6 in. 

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) to provide proper light conditions 

for promoting development of existing red oak regeneration while 

controlling competition from resprouting and fast growing intolerant 

trees. Stem injection herbicide treatments are also recommended in 

the mid-Atlantic mixed oak forests and Allegheny hardwood stands 

to control understory vegetation where mechanical broadcast spraying 

treatments might not be feasible or desirable (Brose et al. 2008, 

Marquis et al. 1992, Miller et al. 2004). Th ese understory herbicide 

treatments are expected to provide at least a 10-year period in which 

competition will be controlled enough to permit desirable regeneration 

to become competitive before fi nal overstory removal harvests.

Studies in central West Virginia have found that most advance beech 

reproduction originates from root sprouts (Kochenderfer et al. 2004, 

2006). Dense thickets of beech root sprouts often develop following 

mortality of trees aff ected by beech bark disease (Houston 1975, 

Ostrofsky and McCormack 1986). Simply cutting beech stems > 6.0 

in. d.b.h. in central West Virginia almost doubled the number of 

live beech root sprouts (Kochenderfer et al. 2006). Th e ability of this 

very shade-tolerant species to regenerate vegetatively by root sprouts 
2

gives beech a competitive advantage in an understory 

environment over other species that must depend on seed 

to regenerate. Leak (2009) attributed beech aggressiveness 

to its suckering capability in New Hampshire where he 

found that after 70 years of understory development 

beech had increased in almost every elevation zone up to 

2,700 ft. Beech is more competitive under partial cutting 

regimes and is very resilient to deer browsing (Horsley et 

al. 2003, Tubbs and Houston 1990).

Hack-and-squirt stem injection is usually considered 

one of the least expensive manual herbicide application 

methods. When used properly, it is a target-specifi c 

treatment that can be used on stems ≥1.0 in. d.b.h., 

on steep topography, and on small ownerships where 

mechanical broadcast spraying might not be feasible. 

It can control interference without impacting advance 

regeneration or desirable residual stems. Another 

advantage of using the stem injection application 

method is that when root sprouting species are injected 

with water soluble herbicides containing the active 

ingredients glyphosate or imazapyr, a large proportion 

of attached root sprouts will also be controlled. Th is 

advantage is important because it can be very costly to 

treat large numbers of individual stems with herbicide 

(Zedaker 1986). A study in central West Virginia 

indicated that in addition to controlling all beech stems 

≥6.0 in. d.b.h. injected with a 50-percent solution of 

glyphosate as AccordTM (41.5 percent), this treatment 

also controlled 52 percent and 21.6 percent of small 

untreated beech understory stems in the 2-ft tall to 

0.9- in. d.b.h. class and the 1.0- to 5.9- in. d.b.h. class, 

respectively (Kochenderfer et al. 2004). In another study 

in the same area, effi cacy was determined for hackand-squirt injection treatments on striped maple using 

6- and 9-percent solutions of imazapyr as ArsenalTM

(28.7 percent) and 50- and 100-percent solutions of 

glyphosate as Glypro PlusTM (41.0 percent) in water 

carriers (Kochenderfer and Kochenderfer 2008). 

Complete control of injected stems was achieved with all 

treatments; however, the ArsenalTM treatments resulted 

in greater control of basal sprouting, untreated striped 

maple stems, and sprout clumps. Because ArsenalTM

(imazapyr), unlike Glypro PlusTM (glyphosate), has soil 

activity, there was some concern in that study about 

damage to nontarget black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) 

crop trees located on 66 percent of the research plots; 

however, only one black cherry crop tree was slightly 

damaged where a 9-percent solution of ArsenalTM was 

used. In an earlier study, a much higher concentration 

of imazapyr caused damage to some crop trees when 

treated trees were the same species as the crop trees 

(Kochenderfer et al. 2001). In this study a much lower 

concentration of imazapyr was used and the treated trees 

and crop trees were diff erent species.

Th ose previous study results gave us the impetus to 

further evaluate stem injection treatments on American 

beech. Because American beech is one of the most 

widespread interfering plants in Appalachian forests, 

it is important to give land managers information that 

will enable them to choose the most cost eff ective stem 

injection treatment they can use to control beech without 

damaging desirable stems. Th e objective of this study 

was to compare the effi cacy of stem injection treatments 

using glyphosate as Razor ProTM (41.0 percent) and 

imazapyr as ArsenalTM (28.7 percent) on injected trees and 

their associated root sprouts, and on nontarget overstory 

residual trees.

METHODS

Study Area

Th e study was installed in a northern hardwood stand 

at an elevation of 3,600 ft in central West Virginia near 

the town of Davis on property managed by Western 

Pocahontas Properties. American beech, black cherry, 

and red maple were the most common overstory trees at 

the study site; beech root sprouts and striped maple were 

the most prevalent interfering understory plants. Past 

partial harvests (the last one occurring about 30 years 

ago), beech bark disease, and preferential deer browsing 

have resulted in the development of a dense understory of 

beech root sprouts on much of the study area.

Size distribution of stems and basal area for the stand 

are shown in Table 1. Most of the stems (89 percent) 

are small beech stems <1.0 in. d.b.h., but 87 percent of 

stand basal area is in trees 6.0 in. d.b.h. and larger. Total 

stand basal area in trees >1.0 in. d.b.h. averaged 165.8 

ft2

/ac. Beech represented 51 percent of the total stand 
3

basal area at the study site. Most of the beech basal area 

(70 percent) was concentrated in the 6.0- to 11.0-in. size 

class. Basal area in the “other” species category (Table 1) 

averaged 81.4 ft2

/ac; black cherry (55.4 ft2/ac) and red 

maple (21.3 ft2

/ac) were the two most dominant species 

in this category. Most of the residual basal area (77.3 

percent) on the treated plots was composed of sawtimbersize black cherry and red maple.

DESIGN AND TREATMENTS

Twelve 0.05-ac circular treatment plots were located on 

the study site. Plots were located where numerous beech 

stems ranging from 1.0 ft tall to 12.6 in. d.b.h. were 

present and at least one black cherry overstory tree >11.0 

d.b.h. that could be evaluated for collateral herbicide 

damage. A circular 0.01-ac plot located around each 

0.05-ac circular plot center was required to contain at 

least 20 beech stems in the 1.0-ft tall to 0.9-in. d.b.h. 

size class. A 50-ft untreated buff er was left between 

plots. All trees ≥1.0 in. d.b.h. were tagged on the 0.05-

ac plots. Standing dead beech stems were removed from 

the plots. D.b.h. and species were recorded for each 

stem ≥1.0 in. d.b.h., and beech stems ≥1.0 in. to 9.9 in. 

d.b.h. were fl agged and the number of required incisions 

(one incision per inch of d.b.h.) was written on each 

fl ag. A 0.01-ac circular plot was established around each 

treatment plot center to determine treatment effi cacy on 

untreated beech stems < 1.0 in. d.b.h. All beech stems 1.0 

ft tall to 0.9 in. d.b.h. were tagged on the 0.01-ac plots. 

Stem counts were recorded for the 1.0-ft tall to 6.0-ft tall 

and 6.0-ft tall to 0.9-in. d.b.h. size classes. Beech root 

sprouts originating from the same point were counted 

as one stem following procedures recommended for 

counting woody interference by Marquis et al. (1992).

Table 1.—Average initial number of stems and basal area for the study site

Size Class Stems Basal Area

(inches d.b.h.) (number/ac) (ft2

/ac)

<1.0 Beech 5,767 ------

Other ------ ------

1.0-5.9 Beech 405 20.85

Black Cherry ------ -------

Red Maple 3 0.17

Sugar Maple 8 0.49

Striped Maple 45 0.47

6.0-11.0 Beech 167 58.72

Black Cherry 17 8.41

Red Maple 12 5.24

Sugar Maple 7 2.53

Striped Maple ------ -------

>11.0 Beech 7 4.86

Black Cherry 45 47.02

Red Maple 15 15.93

Sugar Maple 2 1.14

Striped Maple ------- --------

Total: Beech 6,346 84.43

Black Cherry 62 55.43

Red Maple 30 21.34

Sugar Maple 17 4.16

Striped Maple 45 0.47

All species 6,500 165.83
4

Two herbicide injection treatments and one control 

treatment were randomly assigned to the 12 plots. 

Each treatment was replicated four times. Th e hackand-squirt injection method was used to apply the 

herbicide treatments. Th e two herbicides used in 

the injection treatments were isopropylamine salt of 

imazapyr as ArsenalTM (28.7 percent) and glyphosate 

N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine as Razor ProTM (41 

percent) in water carriers. Th e three treatments included 

the following concentrations of formulated product: 

ArsenalTM (6 percent), Razor ProTM (50 percent), and 

Control (no treatment). Instructions for mixing the 

proper concentration of herbicide were described in 

Kochenderfer et al. (2012). Th e two injection treatments 

were applied to all beech stems ≥1.0 in. to 9.9 in. d.b.h. 

in September 2008 using two applicators; beech stems 

larger than 9.9 in. d.b.h. were not treated. One incision 

per inch of d.b.h. was applied using a hatchet with a 

ground-down bit 1.75 in. wide. A plastic spray bottle 

calibrated to dispense 0.9 ml per squirt was used to apply 

approximately 1.5 ml of solution into each incision. 

Th e actual volume of herbicide used for each herbicide 

application was recorded for each treatment plot.

EFFICACY EVALUATIONS

Th e plots were evaluated in September 2009, 12 months 

after treatment. A numerical rating system based on visual 

estimation of crown control ranging from 1 to 7 (0-100 

percent crown aff ected) was used to evaluate the effi cacy 

of each treatment on both targeted and nontargeted 

individual stems (Kochenderfer et al. 2001, Memmer and 

Maass 1979). Two observers rated all stems on each plot. 

Th e main ratings for each plot showed no discernible 

bias among observers, so ratings were not adjusted. Stems 

with an effi cacy rating of 5.0 or higher (75 percent crown 

necrotic) were considered controlled. All the tagged 

beech stems from ≥1.0 ft tall to 9.9 in. d.b.h. in the study 

were used to determine the effi cacy of the stem injection 

treatments. All the tagged stems on the four plots in each 

treatment were lumped together for statistical analysis. 

Th e relationship between the three treatments and 

percentage of stems controlled by size class was analyzed 

using a one-way analysis of variance (Sall et al. 2001).

A procedure used by Kochenderfer et al. (2001) was 

modifi ed to determine treatment cost-eff ectiveness 

($/stem controlled). Total treatment costs and total 

number of beech stems controlled per acre were used 

as variables to compute the cost eff ectiveness of each 

herbicide treatment. Actual treatment costs were not 

collected in this study. Total costs were determined by 

applying the $0.028 per inch of d.b.h. treatment cost 

determined by Kochenderfer et al. (2004) from injection 

treatments in a similar stand near this study area to the 

total inches of d.b.h. treated per acre in this study. Lower 

cost eff ectiveness refl ects the most effi cient treatments. 

Th e cost eff ectiveness of both herbicide injection 

treatments was determined using the following formula:

CE= TC/TSC

Where

Cost eff ectiveness (CE) = Average cost to control 

each beech stem.

Total treatment costs (TC) = Total costs include 

labor ($10/hr) and chemical costs

Total stems controlled (TSC) = Average number 

of stems controlled per acre.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Injection application and cost data are shown in Table 

2. Th irty-two percent more basal area was treated 

in the Razor ProTM treatment. Average treated stem 

diameter was 1.0 in. larger and 65 more stems per acre 

were treated on the Razor ProTM plots. Th e amount of 

herbicide applied per incision was lower than intended 

on the ArsenalTM plots; it averaged 1.2 ml and 1.5 ml for 

the ArsenalTM and Razor ProTM treatments, respectively. 

Th e larger volume of herbicide applied per incision, 

coupled with the large number of incisions, resulted in 

more herbicide being applied on the Razor ProTM plots. 

Th ere were six untreated stems controlled for each stem 

injected on the Razor ProTM plots compared to nine 

stems on the ArsenalTM plots. Th e average number of 

untreated beech stems controlled per treated stem was 

33 percent higher on the ArsenalTM plots. Th is fi nding is 

refl ected in the cost eff ectiveness values shown in Table 

2 for the two treatments. It cost almost twice as much 

to control each stem on the Razor ProTM plots (Table 2). 

Average cost eff ectiveness was 43 percent more favorable 

on the ArsenalTM treatment because the total inches of 

d.b.h. treated per acre was 30 percent lower and a higher 

percentage of untreated stems were controlled on the 

ArsenalTM plots, which reduced treatment costs.
5

Th e reductions in stand basal area associated with each 

treatment are shown in Figure 1. Before treatment stand 

basal area averaged 159.1 ft2

/ac and 181.1 ft2/ac on the 

ArsenalTM and Razor ProTM plots, respectively. Beech 

basal area averaged 76.9 ft2

/ac on the ArsenalTM plots 

and 102.2 ft2

/ac on the Razor ProTM plots. Th ere were 

62.2 ft2

/ac of beech basal area controlled on the Arsenal 

plots compared to 91.6 ft2

/ac on the Razor ProTM plots. 

After treatment, residual stand basal area was similar on 

the treated plots. Untreated basal area in beech trees >9.9 

in. d.b.h. was slightly higher on the ArsenalTM plots (14.64 

ft2

/ac versus 11.23 ft2/ac) than on the Razor ProTM plots.

Treatment effi cacy is shown in Table 3. Both treatments 

were eff ective in controlling beech root sprouts (Fig. 2). 

Overall, the ArsenalTM and Razor ProTM treatments 

controlled 77 percent and 64 percent of all the untreated 

beech stems 1.0 ft tall to 0.9 in. d.b.h., respectively. Th e 

ArsenalTM treatment controlled 83 percent and the Razor 

ProTM controlled 66 percent of the 1.0-ft-tall to 6.0-ft-tall 

untreated beech root sprouts. Control of untreated beech 

in the >6.0-ft-tall to 0.9-in. d.b.h. class was much closer, 

Table 2.—Injection application data and treatment cost

Characteristic Arsenal 6% Razor Pro 50%

Basal area treated (ft2

/ac) 62.22 91.60

Average number of beech stems 

 treated (number/ac)

495 560

Average d.b.h. (in.) 3.8 4.8

Amount of herbicide used (gal/ac) 0.62 1.08 

Application cost ($/ac)* 52.67 75.26

Average number of untreated stems 

 controlled per treated stem 

9 6

Cost effectiveness ($/stem controlled) 0.012 0.021

*Based on $0.028 per inch of d.b.h. treated.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Arsenal Razor Pro Control

Basal Area (ft2/ac) 

Before Treatment After Treatment

Treatments 

Figure 1.—Average stand basal area (ft2/ac) before and after 

the injection treatments; American beech basal area was 

reduced by 87 percent on the treated plots.

Table 3.—Initial number of beech stems/acre and percentage of stems controlled by each treatment, 

by size class

Size Class

Treatment 1.0 ft tall to 6.0 ft tall >6.0 ft tall to 0.9 in. d.b.h 1.0 to 9.9 in. d.b.h.

Initial beech 

stems

Beech stems 

controlled*

(%)

Initial beech 

stems

Beech stems 

controlled*

(%)

Initial beech 

stems

Beech stems 

controlled*

(%)

6% Arsenal 4,250 83a 1,475 63a 495 100a

50% Razor Pro 5,000 66a 1,150 56a 560 100a

Control 3,550 1b 1,875 1b 630 5b

*means followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different at the .01 level (Experimentwise) using Tukey’s HSD.
6

63 percent and 56 percent for the ArsenalTM and Razor 

ProTM treatments, respectively. Both treatments controlled 

100 percent of the treated stems and were signifi cantly 

more eff ective than on the untreated plots; control 

(natural mortality) averaged only 1 percent for all size 

classes (Fig. 3). Th ese results are consistent with other 

studies that have used glyphosate to control American 

beech (Kochenderfer et al. 2001, 2004). Th e higher 

overall effi cacy of 77 percent for untreated stems on the 

ArsenalTM treatment compares favorably with the average 

effi cacy (85 percent) observed on a beech cut-stump 

study in the same area (Kochenderfer and Kochenderfer 

2009). Although the ArsenalTM treatment controlled 13 

percent more of the untreated beech stems, there was no 

statistical signifi cant diff erence between the two 

treatments (Table 3). Th e lack of statistical signifi cance 

can probably be attributed to the wide variation in 

effi cacy on untreated beech stems among individual plots 

within treatments, particularly within the Razor ProTM

treatment where effi cacy within plots ranged from 39 to 

90 percent as opposed to the ArsenalTM plots where 

effi cacy within plots ranged from 74 to 80 percent. Th ere 

was only a 10-percent diff erence in the mean treatment 

effi cacy for the untreated stems when the plot with the 

lowest effi cacy in each treatment was eliminated in the 

analysis.

Th e reduced effi cacy on some of the Razor ProTM plots is 

not fully understood but could be attributed to a number 

of factors. First, there is the natural inherent variability in 

the distribution of treated and untreated beech stems on 

the plots. Cut-stump studies have clearly demonstrated 

that beech root sprout mortality is not uniform but was 

higher close to the treated stumps and around larger 

beech stumps treated with glyphosate (Kochenderfer 

et al. 2006). In another cut-stump study in a northern 

hardwood stand in West Virginia where Kochenderfer 

and Kochenderfer (2009) studied cut-stump treatments, 

effi cacy was not clearly related to distribution of treated 

stumps within the plots. Plots with fewer widely spaced 

cut stumps did not always have a corresponding lower 

effi cacy. Kochenderfer and Kochenderfer (2009) pointed 

out that effi cacy would not be aff ected in areas that had 

no root sprouts and that root grafts between treated tree 

stumps and root sprouts from other trees might extend 

treatment eff ects.

Figure 2.—Root sprout efficacy after 3 years on a study plot treated with a 6-percent solution 

of ArsenalTM in a water carrier.

U.S. Forest Service
7

Another factor that could have infl uenced plot effi cacy 

was the amount of basal area treated. When herbicides 

are applied to plants, they migrate to the most active 

growing parts of the plants, i.e., the cambium and buds, 

where they exert toxicity within the plant (Anderson 

1996). Unlike cut-stump treatments where all the applied 

herbicide is potentiality available to be translocated to 

attached root sprouts or through root grafts to other 

stems, much of the injected herbicide is tied up by 

the injected trees themselves and unavailable to be 

translocated to other stems. Because the treated stems 

were larger and more numerous on the Razor ProTM plots, 

more of the herbicide could have been tied up in these 

larger stems and less herbicide would have been available 

to control attached root sprouts.

Black cherry crop trees occurred on 100 percent of the 

plots. A total of 13 black cherry crop trees were located 

on the Razor ProTM plots and 8 were located on the 

ArsenalTM plots. None of the black cherry crop trees 

were damaged by either of the herbicide treatments. 

In addition, 15 red maples located on the treated 

plots were not damaged by the herbicide treatments. 

Imazapyr, the active ingredient in ArsenalTM, is soil 

active (Anderson 1996) and can be absorbed through 

the roots of untargeted plants (USDA 1989). Past 

studies using ArsenalTM have shown some damage to 

untreated black cherry crop trees (Kochenderfer et al. 

2001, Kochenderfer and Kochenderfer 2008). Th e lack 

of damage in this study can probably be attributed to 

the lower concentrations of ArsenalTM used, 6 percent 

compared to 9 and 15 percent used in those studies, 

and restricting treatment to only beech stems precluded 

transmission to other species by root grafts because 

interspecifi c grafts between roots of diff erent species are 

rare (Graham and Bormann 1966). Damage to black 

cherry crop trees was not expected on the Razor ProTM

plots because glyphosate, the active ingredient in Razor 

ProTM, has no soil activity and can move to other trees 

only through root grafts.

Some unintended damage was observed on beech 

trees greater than 9.9 in. d.b.h. with both herbicide 

treatments. A total of 10 beech trees larger than 9.9 in. 

d.b.h. were located on the treated plots. One beech tree 

in the ArsenalTM treatment was killed and one tree in the 

Razor ProTM treatment was damaged. Although there 

were not enough beech trees larger than 9.9 in. d.b.h. to 

Figure 3.—An untreated control plot showing the dense understory of beech root sprouts.

U.S. Forest Service
8

draw statistical inferences, these results demonstrate that 

herbicide injected into smaller treated stems can move to 

the larger untreated stems of the same species, probably 

via root grafts, and cause damage. Kochenderfer et al. 

(2006) observed that larger residual beech trees near 

beech stumps that had been treated with a 100-percent 

solution of GlyproTM (53.8 percent) herbicide seemed 

to function as pumps and created gradients that drew 

herbicide to them, controlling the large uncut beech trees 

as well as smaller beech root sprouts associated with them.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Th is study demonstrated that hack-and-squirt injection 

treatments using a 6-percent solution of ArsenalTM, which 

is equivalent to a 3-percent solution of ArsenalTM AC, or 

a 50-percent solution of Razor ProTM herbicides in water 

carriers are eff ective treatments when applied to beech 

stems 1.0 in. to 9.9 in. d.b.h., which will control both 

injected trees and a large proportion of small beech root 

sprouts associated with them. Both herbicide treatments 

used in this study were eff ective.

Damage to residual trees was minimal in this study, but 

because ArsenalTM has soil activity, ArsenalTM treatments 

have a greater potential to damage nontarget stems 

than the Razor ProTM treatments. Using low herbicide 

concentrations and application rates like those used in 

this study and restricting treatment to species diff erent 

from those considered desirable for crop trees will 

minimize damage to desirable species. Th e use of these 

injection treatments is not recommended during periods 

of sap fl ow that frequently occur between November 1 

and leaf out in this region of the Appalachians. When 

stands contain an undesirable striped maple component 

in the understory, the ArsenalTM treatment would be 

preferred because research has shown ArsenalTM is more 

eff ective on maple (Acer spp.) than glyphosate treatments 

(Kochenderfer and Kochenderfer 2008).

Other studies have shown that the cut-stump treatment 

will control a larger proportion of untreated beech root 

sprouts than stem injection treatments; however, the 

use of the cut-stump treatment is restricted to stands 

where enough freshly cut beech stumps are available 

for treatment (Kochenderfer et al. 2006). Th e hackand-squirt treatments described in this study are more 

versatile than cut-stump treatments over a wide range 

of stand conditions to accomplish diff erent silvicultural 

objectives. For example, injection treatments can be 

applied where previous harvests or beech bark disease 

has eliminated the larger beech trees, thus leaving few 

treatable stumps to control the undesirable beech sprouts 

that remain. Injection treatments can also be used 

before timber harvests to control dense understories that 

interfere with the development of advance reproduction 

of desirable species. Th e injection treatments described 

in this study and cut-stump treatments are especially 

applicable on root sprouting species like beech, where 

several stems can be controlled by treating one stem or 

stump. Th is study provides land managers with useful 

information that will enable them to select stem injection 

treatments with high effi cacies that fi t their stand 

conditions and silviculture objectives when attempting to 

control American beech in Appalachian forest stands.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Th e authors thank Douglas N. Toothman, Western 

Pochahontas Properties, for providing the study site. 

Th e authors thank John Stanovick, statistician with 

the Northern Research Station, for assistance with the 

statistical analyses, and Arlyn Perkey, David McGill, and 

Todd Ristau for technical review comments.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, W.P. 1996. Weed science principles and 

applications. 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing 

Company. 398 p.

Brose, P.H.; Gottschalk, K.W.; Horsley, S.B; Knopp, 

P.D.; Kochenderfer, J.N.; McGuinness, B.J.; Miller, 

G.W.; Ristau, T. E.; Stoleson, S. H.; Stout, S.L. 2008. 

Prescribing regeneration treatments for mixed-oak 

forests in the Mid-Atlantic region. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-33. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 90 p.

Graham, B.F., Jr.; Bormann, F.H. 1966. Natural root 

grafts. Botanical Review. 32: 255-292.
9

Horsley, S.B.; Bjorkbom, J.C. 1983. Herbicide 

treatment of striped maple and beech in Allegheny 

hardwood stands. Forest Science. 29(1): 103-112.

Horsley, S.B.; Stout S.L.; DeCalesta, D.S. 2003. Whitetailed deer impact of the vegetation dynamics of a 

northern hardwood forest. Ecological Applications. 

13(1): 98-118.

Houston, D.R. 1975. Beech bark disease: the aftermath 

forests are structured for a new outbreak. Journal of 

Forestry. 73(10): 660-663.

Kochenderfer, J.D.; Kochenderfer, J.N. 2008. Effi cacy 

of stem injection treatments on striped maple in 

central West Virginia. Field Note. Northern Journal 

of Applied Forestry. 25(2): 106-108.

Kochenderfer, J.D.; Kochenderfer, J.N. 2009. Eff ects 

of herbicide concentration and application timing 

on the control of beech root and stump sprouts 

using the cut-stump treatment. Gen Tech. Rep. 

NRS-48. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 10 p.

Kochenderfer, J.D.; Kochenderfer, J.N.; Miller, G.W. 

2006. Controlling beech root and stump sprouts 

using the cut-stump treatment. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 23(3): 155-165.

Kochenderfer, J.D.; Kochenderfer, J.N.; Miller, G.W. 

2012. Manual herbicide application methods for 

managing vegetation in Appalachian hardwood 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-96. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 59 p.

Kochenderfer, J.D.; Kochenderfer, J.N.; Warner, D.A.; 

Miller, G.W. 2004. Preharvest manual herbicide 

treatments for controlling American beech in 

central West Virginia. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 21(1): 40-49.

Kochenderfer, J.D.; Zedaker, S.M.; Johnson, J.E.; Smith, 

D.W.; Miller, G.W. 2001. Herbicide hardwood 

crop tree release in central West Virginia. Northern 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 18(2): 46-54.

Leak, W.B. 2009. Seventy years of understory 

development by elevation class in a New Hampshire 

mixed forest: management implications. Field Note. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 26(4):164-166.

Loftis, D.L. 1990. A shelterwood method for 

regenerating red oak in the southern Appalachians.

Forest Science. 36(4): 917-929.

Marquis D.A.; Ernst, R.L.; Stout, S.L. 1992. 

Prescribing silvicultural treatments in hardwood 

stands of the Alleghenies (revised). Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NE-96. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 101 p.

Memmer, P.; Maass, D. 1979. Results of tree injection 

treatments in Monson, Maine. In: Proceedings of 

the Northeastern Weed Science Society; 1979 January 

3-5; Boston, MA. Northeastern Weed Science Society. 

Vol. 33, Supplement: 50-51.

Miller, G.W.; Kochenderfer, J.N.; Gottschalk, K.W. 

2004. Eff ect of pre-harvest shade control and 

fencing on northern red oak seedling development 

in the central Appalachians. In: Spetich, M.A., ed. 

Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current 

conditions, and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 182-189.

Nyland, R.D.; Bashant, A.L.; Bohn, K.K.; Verostek, 

J.M. 2006a. Interference to hardwood regeneration 

in northeastern North America: ecologic 

characteristics of American beech, striped maple, 

and hobblebush. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 23(1): 53-61.

Nyland, R.D.; Bashant, A.L.; Bohn, K.K.; Verostek, J.M. 

2006b. Interference to hardwood regeneration in 

northeastern North America: controlling eff ects of 

American beech, striped maple, and hobblebush.

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(2): 122-132.
10

Ostrofsky, W.D.; McCormack, M.L., Jr. 1986. 

Silvicultural management of beech and the beech 

bark disease. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

3(3): 89-91.

Sall, J.; Lehman, A.; Creighton, L. 2001. JMP Start 

Statistics. 2d ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc: 171-

185.

Trimble, G.R., Jr. 1973. Th e regeneration of central 

Appalachian hardwoods with emphasis on the 

eff ects of site quality and harvesting practice. Res. 

Pap. NE-282. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 14 p.

Tubbs, C.H.; Houston, D.R. 1990. American beech 

(Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.). In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, 

B.H., eds. Silvics of North America Agric. Handb. 

654. Vol. 2. Washington DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture: 325-332.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Vegetation management 

in the Appalachian Mountains. Vol 1. Manage. Bull. 

R8-MB38. 399 p.

Zedaker, S.M. 1986. Herbicides and application 

techniques for managing immature hardwoods. In: 

Smith, H.C.; Eye, M.C., eds. Proceedings: Guidelines 

for managing immature Appalachian hardwood 

stands. SAF Publ. 86-02. Bethesda, MD: Society of 

American Foresters: 240-250.
Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Kochenderfer, Jeffrey D.; Miller, Gary W.; Kochenderfer, James N. 2012. A comparison 

of two stem injection treatments applied to American beech in central West 

Virginia. Res. Pap. NRS-21. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 10 p.

Efficacies for two herbicide stem injection treatments on American beech (Fagus 

grandifolia Ehrh.) and impacts to nontarget residual trees were evaluated in central West 

Virginia. The treatments consisted of hack-and-squirt injection of all beech stems ≥1.0 

in. to 9.9 in. diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) with either imazapyr as ArsenalTM (28.7 

percent) or glyphosate as Razor ProTM (41 percent) in water carriers. The treatments 

were applied in September 2008 and evaluated 12 months after treatment. Complete 

control of injected stems was achieved with both treatments; however, treatment 

efficacy on untreated beech stems >1.0 ft tall to 0.9 in. d.b.h. was higher on the Arsenal 

treatments. No damage occurred to any desirable overstory species such as black 

cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) or red maple (Acer rubrum L.) trees that were located on 

all the treatment plots. Land managers can use the hack-and-squirt injection treatments 

described in this study to control both injected trees and a large proportion of smaller 

beech root sprouts associated with them.

KEY WORDS: herbicide, American beech, stem injection treatments, efficacy, nontarget 

residual trees, imazapyr, glyphosate, silviculture 
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us